The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-04
COTTON COMPRESS FIRE.
LOSSES TO BE PAID BY FIRE INsuR.
ANCE COMPANIES.
None OF the Cotton in the Presses Cow
cred by Marine Insurance Companies
Planters Not Interested in the Re-
suit

In Yesterdays APPEAL appeared an ar
ticlc on the Memphis compress fire, taken
from the st. Louis Globe. Democrat of the
LIST, and which contained number of err
rors as 10 fire and marine policies OF in.
surance as follows
II goes without saying that this vast amount Of
cotton was owned by hundreds Of different parties,
planters and brokers throughout the cotton grow.
inr belt tributary tn the city Of Memphis II il
more than probable that every bale OF the cotton
which they shipped, aud which was lost by the
frp, was Coycrud 10y policies OF marine insurance
IN the Interest oi The conslgnot. This feature NJ
Insurance is pulling the Underwriters. The risks
having bccu PLACED At numerous shipping points
BY thrr agents, sufficient time has not elapsed iOf
i6ein iu ascertain how many different companies
am involved. Another feature that Complicuies
the adjustment OF the loss, and one that rcquirrs
time to determine Is a. what extent II any. these
marine risks may be liable II Is probable that but
very small proportion Of the policies are written
alike, AZ nearly MI the companies vary to greater
or less degree IN their mode oi doing business.
Some marine policies only guarantee against loss
Of goods while In transit, the compauys liability
ccasing the minute the cargo Is unloadod. Other
policies provide against los until merchandise N
placed IN the warehouse, and II IA said that some
marine insurance Il written ~ ~ to protect the
owner until his cotton has been sold from the ware
house and removed,
A prominent cotton buyer gives the fol-
lowing explanation rs TO the liabilities in.
cured by insurance companies: THE
truth is, the planters were not interested
In a bale Of the cotton. None Of the cotton
In the presses was covered by marine in
surancc that the planters might have had
on cotton coming 20 Memphis by river, Ms
the marine insurance ended when the
cotton was landed ON the levce from the
boats. Then II was sent 10 the cotton
sheds, where il was covered by the factors
insurance policies until Il was sold and re.
moved 10 the compress, where II was COW
cred by the policies of the buyers on the
policies OF the compress company, conse-
quently there can be nd conflict between
the marine and fire insurance companies.
~On cotton that was burnt in the com
press, for which bills oflading had been Civ
en- 10y transportation companies, and insured
by the shipper or consigncc, IL is supposed
the compress company will require the
holders OF the policies 10 look 10 their UNI
derwritcn for payment OF loss, but on all
cotton waiting shipment, for which the
compress receipts were given, and ON
which there was no other insurance cx- !
ccpt that covered by the policies OF the |
compress company, there will bc no |
question raised rs 10 the liability OF the |
compress company 10 adjust and pay.
"Wher shippers hold what are called
Blanket policies, which covered their |
cotton from the time their marks were put |
upon IL, whcthcrin sheds, compress, depo,s
or elsewhere, the compress company will
probably rquirc the shippers 10 collect
their loss under their policies.
at would seem that there should not bc |
any difficulty in settling the losses under
these rules"